Comments

Comments

Your name*Email*Comment*

Recent comments

Puzzled

August 01, 2014 - 07:27

So he pleads guilty to get sentence reduced now he wants to appeal stay in court because he did,nt get enough time taken off. Should have gotten him 10 years and taken one off. Lock the criminal up and no appeal.

Some of us know this man in a legitimate business relation or a personal relationship or both. He got what he deserved, no more, no less. Some people are very desperate to make a living with the skill set that we can manage. This man was not violent and wasn't invading people's homes. I'm saying this is a victimless crime but others weren't afraid of him being around.

Doucette can whine and cry all he wants, but the overwhelming public consensus is outrage at the crime, and that he got what he deserved. If he didn't want to spend 7 years in jail, then he should not be selling drugs. He knew the risks! This is a great message to our Island drug dealers!

I think that his seven year sentence was well earned, especially given the amount/value of drugs, and his prior record for serious drug offences, and the detrimental impact this kind of crime is having on our community. Good job Judge Orr. This is just the kind of deterrent needed for guys like this...

you are a drug dealer and to me you have no right to be on the streets of canada. how many lives have you destroyed just to make a few bucks? if i could all drug dealers would be on a work farm and chain gang till they die.

Stiff sentences is the only way we are going to get the drugs off the street. I do not think it is to excessive at all. He had a record of selling from before and it did nothing to deter him.
We want the drugs off the street, you start with the dealers. Sebastian Ayangma who was convicted of selling drugs and assault still continues to break the law with four charges from operation clean sweep. They will get know sympathy for me, and I will continue to follow cases to the end,

While I could agree those selling hard drugs (not pot) should get some time behind bars, and repeat offenders exponentially more time. I could not agree with making them responsible for paying the cost of police resources. Sure you can confiscate any money they have, even vehicles and property as the profits of crime (if convicted), but making them pay police expenses could lead to police spending hundreds of thousands for some small time 'dealer' (really even a simple user) why not it would not affect their budget. The victim surcharge is already a scam of the courts really. The police are already funded for their work and they should only be after those of importance not every person in possession of some substance or technically breaking a law. What if this big operation only resulted in one possession with intent or trafficking conviction should they pay the expense of the entire operation? It would be madness. Just wait until they start taking the action of civil forfeiture here and take innocent folks money for no reason (other than you have it and they figure it will be too much trouble or expense to get a small amount back) Then you have to prove you were not using it for or getting it from crime. This practice is out of hand in the US and it is already the law in 2 provinces, where we are supposed to have the presumption of innocence.

jacinta

July 31, 2014 - 13:37

Yes you should come to the courts and see our tax dollars at work. First they get legal aid, paid for by us and then every time you go to the court it is delayed because one lawyer or the other did not have the paper work or the time to go over it. Due process my ass, money grab is more like it. Operation Clean Sweep started in January and last time I checked after many court appearances, they still were postponing actual hearings and pleas. Like I said no wonder lawyers live in such large houses